The State of Health of the Mount Lofty Ranges

Catchments from a water quality perspective

Government of South Australia

The State of Health of the

Mount Lofty Ranges Catchments from a water quality perspective

Environment Protection Agency

Department for Environment and Heritage

GPO Box 2607, Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone 08 8204 2000

www.epa.sa.gov.au

Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Protection Office

85 Mt Barker Road, Stirling SA 5152

Telephone 1300 134 810 Facsimile 08 8139 9901

OCTOBER 2000

ISBN 1 876562 07 2

Front cover: First Creek at Waterfall Gully. The Environment Protection Agency's ambient water quality

monitoring programme identified its waters as being one of the healthiest in South Australia.

Its catchment is almost entirely native vegetation.

Foreword

The water resources and catchments

of the Mount Lofty Ranges are critical

to the well-being of the people of

Adelaide and the future development

of South Australia.

The catchments of the Mount Lofty

Ranges are used for different purposes

including harvesting of drinking water,

agriculture, intensive horticulture,

recreation, rural living, tourism,

environmental conservation and

urban environments. These multiple

uses place pressure on the water

resource and can impact on water

quality.

Large storage reservoirs have been

constructed on some of the numerous

rivers and streams of the Mount Lofty

Ranges to harvest its relatively high

rainfall and supply Adelaide with

drinking water. This drinking water

is supplemented with water from the

River Murray. However, water collected

within the catchments is a significant

component of the total supply needs

of Adelaide. The issue of providing safe

drinking water is a priority.

The higher rainfall and richer soils

have meant that the Mount Lofty

Ranges are used quite extensively for

agriculture. Many people now live

and work in towns and villages nestled

in once pristine river valleys to take

advantage of the climate and appeal

of the ranges. Protecting and improving

water quality in the Mount Lofty

Ranges watershed is fundamental to the

welfare of most South Australians.

The government is therefore

committed to protecting and improving

water quality in the Mount Lofty Ranges

watershed. Programmes in excess of

$28 million are already under way and

additional funds, amounting to a total

funding package of $40 million, will be

spent over the next five years on a range

of measures that include:

• accelerating sewering of major towns

• fencing our rivers and streams

• undertaking more comprehensive and

targeted monitoring programmes

• providing resources for compliance

management

• undertaking education and awareness

raising programmes on activities that

can impact on water quality.

The five-year programme is significant

and targeted at improving water quality

and reducing the risks. Long term water

quality improvements can only be

achieved if we all work together.

John Olsen FNIA MP

Premier of South Australia

Foreword

Major catchments in the Mount Lofty Ranges

Major Mt Lofty Ranges Catchments

Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed

Wider Mt Lofty Ranges Catchments Area

Rivers and Streams

Figure 1.

Light

Kapunda

Tanunda

Gawler Gawler

Marne

Williamstown

Gulf St

Vincent Mt Pleasant

Torrens

Adelaide

Stirling

River Murray

Mt Barker Onkaparinga

Bremer-Barker Murray Bridge

Angas

Finniss

Myponga Lake

Alexandrina

Hindmarsh

Victor Harbor Currency

Creek

1. IntroductionIssues relating to water

quality The Mount Lofty Ranges catchments

(Figure 1) are a significant source of

drinking water for Adelaide and home

to a number of important aquatic

environments. Unlike the water

supply catchments of most other

Australian capital cities they are also

an important region for agriculture,

and urban and rural living. Over time,

this has led to fundamental landuse

conflicts that have resulted in a

number of water quality issues.

The purpose of this document is to

raise awareness of these issues, and

to outline measures that are being

undertaken to improve water quality.

Water quality issues include: • blooms of toxic algae in dams and

reservoirs

• major reservoirs closed because of contamination of water by algae

• stock deaths from animals drinking water contaminated by toxic algae

• pesticides causing contamination in some rivers and streams

• water-borne parasites, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, detected in rivers and streams

• sediment from erosion of degraded river banks, overgrazing and intensive horticultural practices deposited in reservoirs

• animal and human faecal contamination of rivers and streams making them unsuitable for drinking without disinfection

• localised heavy metal contamination.

Some of the causes of these issues are: • poorly maintained septic tank systems

some of which discharge raw sewage into the rivers and streams of the catchment

• livestock access to watercourses which causes rapid erosion of waterways and the movement of sediment into weirs and reservoirs

• overgrazing, coupled with heavy rainfall, which erodes soils

• cropping on steep valley slopes which contributes to extensive soil erosion and delivers large amounts of sediment and nutrients into streams

• past swamp drainage, to clear land for agriculture, which can trigger stream bed deepening

• large numbers of farm dams which reduce the flow of many major watercourses

• past planning practices which have allowed some inappropriate development in water supply catchments.

Measures being taken to

tackle these issues

include:

• Domestic wastewater

treatment systems are

being audited and

required to comply with

health regulations.

• The programme to sewer

the major towns of

Aldgate, Stirling and

Bridgewater is being

accelerated.

• Additional funds will be

provided to speed up

restoration of rivers

and streams.

• Farm dam regulations

are being reviewed and

existing farm dams

assessed.

• Planning strategies are

being reviewed with a

stronger focus on water

quality.

• Education programmes

will be increased targeting

activities that impact on

water quality.

3.

The Gorge

Weir (EPA).

4.

Why are the Mount LoftyRanges

important? The catchments of the Mount Lofty

Ranges cover an area of more than

4000 square kilometres and contain

many significant natural and

economic resources.

Early settlers determined the landuse character of the ranges within the first 50 years of settlement in South Australia. The main activities were market gardening, fruit growing, cropping, grazing and mining. These landuses continue today.

Since settlement, the Mount Lofty Ranges catchments have also been a major source of Adelaide’s water supply. Extraction for the city of Adelaide began in 1860 with the construction of the Gorge Weir. Other reservoirs, Barossa (1902), Warren (1916), Millbrook (1918), Mount Bold (1938), South Para (1958), Myponga (1962) and Kangaroo Creek (1969) were built to meet Adelaide’s growing demand for water. As supplies of water are variable from year to year, water is piped from the River Murray and stored in Mount Bold, Millbrook and Kangaroo Creek reservoirs. Pumping to the River Torrens began in 1953 and to the Onkaparinga River in 1957. A second pipeline to the Onkaparinga was completed in 1974.

Land uses within our Mount Lofty Ranges • Local runoff from the catchments

contributes up to 60% of Adelaide’s water supply.

• The area is a major source of dairy, market garden and horticultural products.

• Different activities, such as forestry, viticulture, quarrying, intensive horticulture, grazing and many others, compete for resources.

• There are 160 townships and over 88 000 people living in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

The significant demands on land in the Mount Lofty Ranges can impact on water resources.

Although water quality issues arose as early as the 1880s, in the early years there was little attempt to control activities along major waterways.

Rather, settlement and agricultural development were given priority over the need to maintain catchments for water supplies.

During the 1970s this changed with the implementation of measures to control township development and intensive animal keeping activities in watersheds.

Today, the issue of maintaining

good water quality for the

Adelaide metropolitan area has

assumed great importance.

The five-year, $40 million

programme to improve the

Mount Lofty Ranges catchments

clearly indicates that the issue of

maintaining good water quality

is a key Government priority.

This programme will include:

• accelerating sewering of major

towns

• fencing rivers and streams

• undertaking more

comprehensive and targeted

monitoring programmes

• providing resources for

compliance management

• undertaking education and

awareness raising

programmes on activities that

can impact on water quality.

An aerial

view of

Mount Bold

reservoir,

surrounded

by a patch­

work of

different

landuses

(EPA).

• Only 1% of the stream network Improvements alreadyHow have our Mount Lofty

of the Adelaide Hills has riparian implemented include: vegetation that is described as being

• No broadacre clearance is

Rangesin a healthy condition.

permitted.

changed? The Mount Lofty Ranges are unique

in Australia. Nowhere else does a • Over 60 km of streams

metropolitan area depend for water have been revegetated.

The rate of change throughout the supplies on catchments that are • Woody weeds have been ranges since settlement has been intensively used for living, industry removed from over 90 km significant. In recent years improved and agriculture. of streams. roads and quicker access have

Nor does any other capital cityresulted in significant population • More than 48 km of

growth in the catchments. depend so greatly on the River Murray, streams have been fenced. a river with water quality severely

Today tested by similar landuse issues. • 20 severe erosion sites

have been rehabilitated.

• Only 8% of native vegetation • More than 47 community

remains, 70% of which is on groups are involved in

private land. Landcare ‘Our Patch’

• 80% of the region is used for primary programmes throughoutproduction. the Torrens catchment.

• The ranges are now made up of highly fragmented rural holdings.

• Seven reservoirs have been constructed for Adelaide’s water supply.

• The hydraulic function of the rivers and floodplains (storing, releasing and directing flood flows) has been fundamentally altered or completely lost.

5.

Whatimprovements are being made

now? Monitoring and evaluation A number of different organisations

monitor water quality. These include

the Department for Environment and

Heritage (DEH) through the

Environment Protection Agency

(EPA), the Department for Water

Resources (DWR), the catchment

water management boards, local

government, Waterwatch groups, SA

Water, community catchment groups,

and Primary Industries and Resources

(PIRSA). A State Water Monitoring

Committee has been established to

coordinate water monitoring, and to

ensure that it is soundly based and

being undertaken efficiently.

Environmental regulation The EPA, the Department of Human

Services and local government are all

involved in different aspects of

environmental regulation. Initiatives

include:

• development of an Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy which will make it an offence to dispose of pollutants in rivers and streams

• development of codes of practice and guidelines for particular activities such as wineries, dairies, piggeries and extractive industries, that explain how to avoid pollution of waterways

• reviews and updates of waste control regulations developed under the Public and Environmental Health Act for septic tanks and other waste disposal systems

• appointment of authorised officers under the Public and Environmental Health Act and the Environment Protection Act with powers to deal with pollution incidents.

6.

Water resource planning The catchment water management

boards must prepare catchment

water management plans as

prescribed in the Water Resources

Act 1997. The requirements are quite

specific and detailed.

Bulk water management SA Water is responsible for bulk

water management. Water is piped

from the River Murray to augment

supplies and transferred between

some reservoirs to meet demand.

The water quality and quantity of reservoirs is monitored regularly. Copper sulfate dosing and destratification are used to control algal blooms and reservoir reserves are maintained to control weeds and other pests. Water is filtered and disinfected before being distributed to the Adelaide metropolitan area.

Development control and planning Developments of environmental

significance, particularly those with

the potential to impact on water

quality, are assessed though the

development application process.

Approved developments frequently

have conditions attached that must

be met to ensure that they do not

pollute water.

The Mount Lofty Ranges Regional Strategy Plan, which was released in 1993, is being reviewed.

Education Education and awareness

programmes include the following:

• ‘Our Patch’ programmes run by the Torrens and Patawalonga catchment water management boards

• training in the use of farm chemicals and pesticides run by the Farm Chemicals Branch of PIRSA

• the Stormwater Code of Practice for the General Community that explains how people can improve stormwater quality by changing practices for disposal of household waste such as lawn clippings, washdown water from cars and paths, animal faeces, swimming pool washwater, and other pollutants

• Landcare groups who are actively engaged in advising landowners on how to improve riparian vegetation and control noxious weeds.

• Waterwatch, an important community based water quality monitoring programme with a strong emphasis on education and awareness raising. There are 60 Waterwatch groups active in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Removed

willows from

the Torrens

River, Cudlee

Creek (EPA).

Restoration In conjunction with the catchment

boards, the Mount Lofty Ranges

Catchment Program Board, soil

boards, local government, DEH (EPA),

DWR, PIRSA and Planning SA

participate in integrated catchment

management schemes to develop

large scale catchment improvements.

Such schemes include:

• development of environmental flow regimes

• land management projects, including the development of small property plans

• natural resource management support, technical advice and education for local action planning groups

• revegetation and restoration projects for streams and corridors

• construction of fences to protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems from stock.

The Torrens, Patawalonga, Onkaparinga, River Murray and Northern Adelaide and Barossa catchment water management boards all cover parts of the Mount Lofty Ranges. They have a strong focus on on-ground works. For example, the Torrens Board has:

• fenced off 48 km of streams

• revegetated 60 km of streams

• removed woody weeds from over 90 km of streams

• rehabilitated 20 erosion sites

• direct-seeded 60 km of stream banks

• established 47 community-based ‘Our Patch’ sites throughout the Torrens catchment. They are used as a focus for education, clean-ups, revegetation and waterway restoration.

The Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program Board and Landcare groups, with funding support from the Natural Heritage Trust fund, are undertaking extensive revegetation and fencing programs in many areas throughout the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Fencing and

restoration

of rivers

and streams

like these

are needed

throughout

the

catchments

(EPA).

Stream bed

and bank

stabilisation

works at

Watts Gully

(EPA).

Revegetation

of a stream in

the Piccadilly

Valley (EPA).

7.

2. Water qualityWater quality

objectives Objectives are determined by an approach that identifies the important values of the water resource.

For the rivers and streams of the Mount Lofty Ranges these values are:

• drinking water • aquatic ecosystems • agricultural use • recreational and aesthetic uses.

Of these values drinking water and aquatic ecosystems are paramount because by protecting these, other values will also be protected.

Drinking water

Micro-organisms The most common and widespread

health risk associated with drinking

water is the presence of micro­

organisms that can cause disease.

The presence of such organisms in

water is usually the result of

contamination, either directly or

indirectly, by human or animal faeces.

Catchment protection is an important factor in minimising the risk of disease from drinking water supplies.

Indicators of faecal contamination Faecal contamination of water supplies is a significant issue. Sources of contamination can include leaking or poorly maintained septic tanks, discharges from septic tank effluent disposal systems, and animal waste or dead animals in or near to waterbodies.

Multiple barriers are used to stop contamination from polluting drinking water. These barriers ideally include selection of water sources that are protected from human or animal faecal material, detention in reservoirs, water treatment and disinfection, and a secure distribution system.

The multiple land uses throughout the Mount Lofty Ranges mean that it is not possible to select water sources that are totally protected from human or animal faecal material.

For this reason our water supplies are treated to comply with Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and ensure that there is no risk to the community.

Faecal coliforms or Escherichia coli (E. coli), which are present in large numbers in the gut of warm blooded animals, are used as indicators of faecal contamination of water supplies. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 1996 require that drinking water contain zero faecal coliforms.

If faecal coliforms are detected in the distribution system then the guidelines recommend that corrective action such as an investigative survey, which can include a survey of the catchment, be undertaken to identify and stop sources of contamination.

Detention in reservoirs to allow die-off, water treatment and disinfection are all effective means of reducing the numbers of micro-organisms that might otherwise be present in drinking water supplies. The use of chlorine to disinfect water supplies over the last five years is shown in the Table 1.

Financial year used (tonnes)

1993-1994 620.6

1994-1995 514.1

1995-1996 638.8

1996-1997 830.9

1997-1998 627.0

Total chlorine

Table 1. Chlorine use in water supplies (source: SA Water).

8.

Water-borne parasites Both Cryptosporidium and Giardia The following The parasites Cryptosporidium and have been detected in some rivers and improvements are being Giardia can cause gastro-enteritis streams of the Mount Lofty Ranges, taken to tackle faecal and and are of public health concern albeit in relatively low numbers. parasite contamination:worldwide. Cryptosporidium are particularly resistant

In the United States alone there have to chlorination and are difficult to • Domestic wastewater

treatment systems arebeen nine major outbreaks since 1984 detect and remove from water supplies.directly attributable to contamination A well-operated and maintained water being audited and required

of drinking water supplies by water-borne treatment plant can be an effective to comply with health parasites. Both surface and groundwater barrier against these organisms entering regulations.sources have been affected. the drinking water supply. This needs • With support from land-

Similar issues have been experienced to be coupled with sound catchment holders, extensive riparianin other countries. management practices such as improvement programmes

Detection of these organisms in the preventing stock access to rivers and are being implemented toSydney water supply in 1998 led to the streams in water supply catchment areas stop stock access andissuing of boil water notices for the whole and the control and proper maintenance metropolitan area. of septic tank systems.

improve stream condition.

Following the Sydney outbreak, • Urban stormwater systems

increased monitoring by water authorities Dogs and cats are a significant source are being improved.

throughout Australia has indicated that of Giardia. The risk of contamination • The use of environmentally

these parasites are often present in can be reduced if owners collect and friendly domestic waste-

catchment rivers and streams. dispose of all faeces safely. water treatment systems

will be encouraged.A microscopic

view of

Cryptosporidium

within the

small intestine

(Uni of

Michigan).

• Education and awareness

programmes will be under­

taken on the proper care

and maintenance of

domestic wastewater

treatment systems.

• Monitoring programmes

will be expanded and

coordinated across agencies.

• Dairies will be audited and

required to comply with

waste management

requirements.

9.

Pesticides reservoirs were well below levels of The following public health concern, Atrazine levels improvements are beingLanduses in the Mount Lofty Ranges four times in excess of drinking water

taken to tackle pesticidecatchments include various guidelines were detected in a catchment

agricultural activities. The area is contamination:creek adjacent to a new pine plantation.renowned for apples, pears, cherries,

Atrazine is no longer used in forestry • Education and awarenessvegetables and other crops. There are

applications in the watershed. raising programmes on thealso extensive forests and vineyards.

Though the pesticide concentrations proper use of farm Pesticides (including insecticides, were well below levels regarded as chemicals will be

herbicides and fungicides) are used to significant from a public health implemented.control a variety of pests which would perspective, they should not be presentotherwise affect the productivity of these in drinking water supplies. Activated • Regulations covering activities. Under some circumstances carbon was used in water treatment registration of commercial (for example transport by runoff after plants to reduce pesticide concentrations pesticide sprayers will beheavy rainfall) these pesticides can below detectable levels. Since July 1998, reviewed with conditionscontaminate rivers and streams. the Government through SA Water has of licence restricting use

In 1998 Atrazine, Hexazinone and invested an additional $600,000 in in the watershed.

Simazine were detected at very low treatment.

concentrations in Barossa, Millbrook, These issues emphasise the need for • A survey of pesticide use

Mount Bold, Myponga, Happy Valley, regular monitoring of water resources, up- practices is being carried

Warren and South Para reservoirs. These to-date information on land use, data on out to determine thepesticides are commonly used for weed pesticide usage and more stringent controls impact of restricting thecontrol particularly in new forestry on their use, and effective catchment use of residual pesticidesplantations, older vineyards and along surveillance. It also highlights the need to in the watershed. the verges of roads. Although ban, or severely restrict, the use of certain concentrations detected in water storage chemicals in reservoir catchment areas. • High risk areas in the

watershed are being Ducted air- identified through

blast sprayer

used for

fungicides in landuse mapping. vineyards.

New

technologies, • Comprehensive pesticide such as this,

prevent monitoring programmesexcessive

pesticide are being implemented.drift (Farm

Chemicals

Branch,

PIRSA).

Copper

sulfate

being

applied by

boat to

Kangaroo

Creek

reservoir

(EPA).

10.

Native Intensive vegetation Urban horticulture Grazing orchards

Total nitrogen 1 3.5 17.3 3.0 3.0

Total phosphorus 1 3.9 27.0 2.0 2.2

Mixed agriculture/

Intensive

horticulture

near

Summertown

in the

Onkaparinga

catchment

(EPA).

Table 3.

Relative mean

annual yields

of nutrients

from different

subcatchments

relative to

native

vegetation

(source: Wood,

1986).

Above:

A thick

surface

scum of

Anabaena

on Kangaroo

Creek

reservoir

(EPA).

Table 2.

Usage of

copper

sulfate on

Adelaide’s

reservoirs to

control algal

blooms

(source: SA

Water).

Algae The warm climate of South Australia

and the relatively high nutrient inputs

encourage algal growth in the water

storage reservoirs. At times the

growth is excessive and treatment

with copper sulfate is used to control

the blooms.

Without this treatment algal blooms

of public health concern could make

the reservoirs unusable. For example

cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) can

produce toxins or blooms with

unpleasant taste and odours.

The usage and frequency of copper sulfate dosing of some of the reservoirs over the last five years is shown in the Table 2.

Number of Total tonnes Year times dosed used

1993 19 313

1994 9 131

1995 8 133

1996 15 201

1997 15 216

Nutrients Nutrients encourage excessive plant

growth and can result in algal blooms

on reservoirs. The term is usually

applied to various compounds of

nitrogen and phosphorus but can also

include carbon compounds. Sources

of nutrients are many and varied, and

include animal waste, effluent from

sewage treatment works and septic

tanks, fertilisers and some industrial

discharges.

Studies undertaken in the Mount Lofty Ranges have found that there is a strong link between land use and the transport of nutrients. Generally there is less nutrient runoff from catchments that have predominantly native vegetation than from catchments dominated by other types of land uses (Table 3). For example intensive horticulture has by far the highest nutrient runoff: 20-30 times that from native catchments.

The lack of effective monitoring of the load of nutrients in the catchments of the Mount Lofty Ranges means that there is very little information to determine if matters are getting better or worse.

Monitoring programmes are now being established to provide this information and to assess the effectiveness of measures being taken to reduce nutrient levels in streams and reservoirs.

11.

SedimentSediment accumulated

on a bridge in

MillbrookThe levels of sediment present in reservoir

(EPA).rivers and streams of the Mount Lofty

Ranges are influenced by the extent of

land clearance, particularly where soil

has been disturbed by cultivation; by

the intensity of rainfall events which

can cause mobilisation of soil; and, in

some rivers, by the extent of pumping

of water from the River Murray.

When water containing sediments

reaches a reservoir the velocity is

reduced and the heavier or coarser

particles settle out. Over time this can

lead to silting up of the reservoir.

Highly turbid

water in a

Mount Lofty

High sediment levels can cause other

issues. The sediment can adsorb Ranges

stream (EPA).nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and

micro-organisms. High sediment levels

can therefore be indicative of other

water quality issues.

As an example of the change in

suspended sediment levels during a

storm event, Figure 2 shows data from

Houlgrave Weir upstream of Mount

Bold reservoir during a storm event in

1979. The baseline concentration of

suspended sediment is around 5 mg/L

but this rises to over 900 mg/L at the

peak of the flood.

Figure 2. River Murray water is pumped intoSuspended 1000

sediment 500 some of the reservoirs in the Mount

Suspended sediment

Flow

concentrations 900 450during a storm Lofty Ranges through upstream rivers.event (source: 800 400

Su

sp

en

ded

sed

imen

t (m

g/L

)

EPA). The turbidity or cloudiness of this water 700 350 can be very high at times giving a very

Flo

w (

ML/h

r)

600 300 muddy appearance. The particles in suspension are usually very small and do not readily settle out in the reservoirs.

500 250

400 200

300 150 The water treatment plants are very

effective at removing suspended sediment and producing water that looks ‘crystal’ clear. There is however a cost. Table 4 shows the amount of alum used by the treatment plants over the last five years to remove suspended sediment.

200 100

100 50

0

3 October Time 12 October

12.

Table 4.

Financial Total alum used year (tonnes)

1993-1994 14524

1994-1995 9387

1995-1996 17697*

1996-1997 27630

1997-1998 25005

*Note: table does not include data for the period

from July to December 1995

In this case the exposed rocks in the Other measures beingAlum use

(source: SA now disused mine are actively oxidisingWater).

to produce acid which dissolves heavy metals from the ore. Notices have been placed along Dawesley Creek warning people that the water is not suitable for drinking, nor for recreational and agriculture use.

taken to tackle water

quality issues

• Extensive riparian

improvement works are

being implemented to

improve stream condition

and stop erosion. This willThe Brukunga mine site is licensed

involve restricting stockHeavy metals under the Environment Protection Act

access to rivers andand now has an agreed Environment The heavy metals copper, lead, Improvement Programme which is streams and providing

chromium, cadmium, mercury and being implemented. a buffer strip to stop

others, can be toxic to humans and to nutrient and sediment

aquatic animals. Some of these Generally, however, elevated runoff from adjacent land.

metals are present in rivers and concentrations of heavy metals are not • Urban stormwater

streams through runoff from roads or regarded as being a significant issue for the rivers and streams of the Mount practices are being

waste discharges. Occasionally, Lofty Ranges. improved.

elevated levels have been detected as

a result of particular activities. • Education and awareness

Salinity raising programmes willMonitoring of Dawesley Creek

be implemented coveringdownstream of the Brukunga iron The replacement of deep-rooted

pyrites mine near Nairne has shown perennial vegetation with shallow-stormwater practices and

Dawesley

Creek which high levels of a number of heavy metals rooted annual agricultural crops and care of riparian areas.

has high

levels of including cadmium, aluminium, iron pastures, or urban development, can • High risk areas will beheavy metals

(EPA). and manganese. result in increased saline ground- identified.

water discharge, or seepage, into • Comprehensive and

rivers and streams. Salt previously coordinated monitoring

stored in the soil and groundwater programmes are being

can be mobilised at an increased rate implemented.

to the soil surface and transported,

by runoff, into streams.

Studies have indicated that the transport of salt through these processes in cleared catchments is likely to be about 4-5 times greater than in a pristine catchment. Although the salt stored in the soil is eventually depleted this can take hundreds to thousands of years. Average salt concentrations in the rivers and streams of the Mount Lofty Ranges vary from about 80 mg/L at Dashwood Gully to approximately 900 mg/L in the Marne River. Concentrations are very dependent on flow.

It has been estimated that significant reductions in salt export from soils could be achieved by modifying landuse and land management practices.

13.

Lenswood

Creek

Inverbrackie

Creek

Piccadilly

Houlgrave

Weir

Echunga

Creek

Noarlunga

Scotts

Creek

Aldgate Creek

Mylor

Nutrients (Ox N & total P)

Water clarity (Turbidity)

Salinity

Physical

Atrazine

Nutrients (Ox N)

Water clarity (Turbidity)

Salinity

Physical

Nutrients

Water clarity (Turbidity)

Salinity

(TDS)

Physical

Nutrients

Water clarity

Salinity

Physical

Nutrients

Water clarity

Salinity

(TDS, conductivity)

Physical

Nutrients

Water clarity (Turbidity)

Salinity

Physical

Faecal

coliforms

Faecal coliforms N

Adelaide

Figure 3.

Assessment

of water

quality

at sites

throughout

the

Onkaparinga

catchment

(source: EPA).

0 5 10

Monitoring sites Kilometres

Onkaparinga catchment

Major streams

Mt Bold Reservoir

Water quality classification

Poor

Moderate

Good

Note: Water quality classifications were developed based on the percentage of time that the water quality conditions exceeded drinking water and aquatic ecosystem guidelines. For more information, see the report Ambient water quality monitoring of South Australia’s river and streams (1998) published by the Environment Protection Agency.

Microbiological quality is based on meeting recreational use guidelines (NHMRC, 1990).

14.

Aquatic ecosystems Pesticides, heavy metals and

sediment can impact on the health

of aquatic ecosystems and are the

traditional chemical indicators of

water quality. Biological indicators

can be a useful additional tool to

assess the overall health of aquatic

ecosystems.

Biological monitoring involves studying the responses of animals or plants to changes in their environment.

Aquatic organisms need the water quality to be good enough to meet their needs and enable them to complete their life-cycles.

Any disturbance, pollution source or event can lead to the death of some or most of the aquatic life in a waterway.

Since many contaminants can pass through a stream over a short period of time, chemical monitoring programmes will not usually detect such events.

This is where biological monitoring is important, as the structure and composition of plant or animal communities provide a measure of the water conditions in a waterway over a period of time which is related to each organism’s life-span.

Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates are most frequently used in biological monitoring studies because they are common, widely distributed, easily sampled and most can be identified by experienced biologists.

Macroinvertebrates are aquatic animals without backbones which are large enough to be seen with the naked eye. They include insects, crustaceans, snails, worms, mites and sponges. The insects include the larvae of flying insects (eg midges, two-winged flies, dragonflies, mayflies,

A predacious

diving beetle

larva (Family

Dytiscidae:

Antiporus sp.)

commonly

found in

healthy

streams in

the Mount

Lofty Ranges

(EPA).

stoneflies and caddisflies) and adults of The following some groups (eg waterbugs, beetles, improvements are being springtails). The more familiar taken to protect aquaticcrustaceans include yabbies and

ecosystems:freshwater shrimps and prawns, as well as less obvious scuds, isopods and crabs. • Extensive riparian

improvements are beingIn general terms greater species

implemented to improvediversity (more different types of organisms) indicates a healthier aquatic ecosystem. In the pristine rivers and streams of Victoria and NSW it is not uncommon to find 40 or more different types of macroinvertebrates from any one habitat at a sampling site. In South Australia, where it is difficult to find truly pristine rivers and streams and where flows are sometimes intermittent, the numbers of different macro-invertebrates at relatively unimpacted or reference sites is usually around 20.

stream condition and stop

erosion.

• Widespread use of

persistent pesticides is

being reviewed and

controls are being

implemented.

• Environmental flows are

being determined so that

normal seasonal cycles can

be identified.

A total of 57 sites were sampled in the rivers and streams of the Mount Lofty Ranges catchments during 1994-95 as part of the Monitoring River Health Initiative (now called AUSRIVAS). Initial results suggest that sites on many of the streams, were significantly impacted compared to reference sites elsewhere. The impacted sites had much lower species diversity (fewer than 10 species) than expected based on water chemistry and habitat features. Some sites, such as the Dawesley Creek downstream of the Brukunga Mine, were very heavily impacted (only one species).

15.

3. Water quantityWhat has impacted How has water quality been The following

on the flow of streams in affected by modified flows? improvements are being

made in relation to farm the ranges? Changes in vegetation cover have had

a major effect on important hydro- dams:Impacts on stream flow include:

logical processes, in particular by • Surveys are being • extensive farm dam development reducing the infiltration of water undertaken to determine

throughout the catchments, through the soil profile and increasing the number and size of particularly the upper reaches of erosion. Water extractions from farm

farm dams in themajor tributaries dams, pumping for livestock and

watershed. • reservoir and mitigation works

domestic use, irrigation and inputs

from the River Murray pipelines have • Farm dam regulations will

• water transfers (water from the River all modified catchment hydrology so be reviewed.

Murray to Adelaide pipeline) that winter flows have been generally • Conditions of approval will

• industrial and agricultural landuses reduced and summer flows increased. be enforced.

(orchards, irrigated pastures, market Water diversions, stormwater inputs

gardens, riparian rights for stock and and wastewater discharges affect water

domestic water, and grazing) quality and quantity. Most notably, lowstream flow reduces the ability of the

• stormwater (towns, rural settlements, system to flush out pollutants, thereby freeway runoff) intensifying their adverse effects on

• release of treated effluent from the aquatic environments and water supplies.

Hahndorf, Heathfield, Meadows,

Birdwood, and Bird in Hand

wastewater treatment plants

The community is now better educated about the need to maintain flow to protect the aquatic

• extensive land clearance since environment. Flows must be managed

settlement. to maintain aquatic and riparianecosystem diversity and health. We

Not only people use water.

The environment needs

it too.

Not all of these factors have reduced measure water flows throughout theflows. They have, however, impacted catchments to make decisions on wateron the flow regime of the catchment allocations, including water and subsequently on the ecological for the environment.sustainability of the riverine and

associated aquatic ecosystems, such as

floodplains, wetlands and estuaries.

The first

discharge

from the

River Murray-

Onkaparinga

pipeline near

Hahndorf

occurred in

1974. Water

pumped from

the River

Murray is

released

into the

Onkaparinga

River when

Adelaide’s

demand for

water

exceeds what

is available at

Mount Bold

Reservoir.

A similar

pipeline

supplies the

reservoirs

of the River

Torrens

(EPA).

16.

0

August

Maxim

um

dis

ch

arg

e (

m3 /s

ec)

September October November

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 Upstream

Downstream

The differencesWhat is the influence of in vegetation

cover in these

two streams

are very

distinct.

reservoirs on the catchments? The stream

on the left

flows pastRain that falls within the rapidly eroding

banks whichcatchments is stored in seven increases

turbidity.major reservoirs across the ranges. The stream

below hasGauging stations are used to a stable bank

and clear

determine the volumes of water water. (EPA)

that reach the reservoirs and how

much is being diverted, via pipes,

to other areas.

Figure 4 shows the effect of river regulation on flow during a flood in 1992. The Gumeracha Weir (shown in blue) is above Kangaroo Creek reservoir and the Gorge Weir (shown in pink) is below the reservoir.

At Gumeracha, the volume of water is far greater and flows for a shorter period than at the Gorge Weir. Water has been held in the reservoir, thereby reducing the impacts of flood downstream. With each flood, more sediments and nutrients reach the reservoirs, affecting water quality.

Figure 4.

Comparison

of flow

between

gauging

stations

upstream and

downstream

of Kangaroo

Creek

reservoir

(EPA).

17.

18.

farm dams on the catchments? Farm dams have changed the

hydrology of the catchments by

holding waters that would

otherwise flow into the tributaries

that feed reservoirs. Estimates of

the numbers of dams and their

impacts vary greatly. A study in

1998 revealed that over 600 dams

had been constructed in the Marne

River catchment (Table 5). Over 90%

of the dams are small, holding

between less than one and five

megalitres. Similar figures are likely

to apply in other catchments.

Size Class Percentage Volume (ML)

<0.5 ML 25 38.5

0.5–2 ML 53 312.7

2–5 ML 13 227.9

5–10 ML 3 154.8

10–20 ML 2 192.9

20–50 ML 2 416.2

> 50 ML 2 816.3

Total 100 2159.4

Table 5. Percentage of farm dams by their size and their

total holding capacity within the Marne River catchment

(source: EPA).

Most dams are found high in the catchment where rainfall is greatest. If the dam is large, water can be completely prevented from flowing downstream or recharging aquifers.

These dams have substantially altered the flow regimes of waterways and have restricted our ability to accurately quantify water use. This has severely limited the ability to calculate the amount of water available for sustainable use.

What is the influence of Floodwaters

in the Torrens

River, 1974

(EPA).

The Cox

Creek

‘v-weir’

gauging

station

within the

Onkaparinga

catchment

(EPA). Note

the highly

turbid water

from recent

irrigation

water that

has runoff

from the

Piccadilly

market

gardens.

A farm dam

in the upper

reaches

of the

Onkaparinga

catchment

with fences

used to

exclude

livestock

(EPA).

4. Sources of pollutionPoint

sources Licensed activities The Environment Protection

Authority licenses activities of

environmental significance as a

means of reducing and eliminating

the environmental harm, or potential

harm, that might otherwise occur.

Licences have been issued to 84 such

activities in the Mount Lofty Ranges

including:

• 17 waste or recycling depots

• 2 wastewater treatment plants (over 1000 persons per day or 100 persons per day in a water protection area)

• 10 septic tank effluent disposal (STED) systems (exceeding 100 persons per day in a water protection area)

• 16 wineries (exceeding a crush of 500 tonnes of grapes per year)

• 5 concrete batching works (exceeding 0.5 cubic metres per production cycle)

• 4 composting works (compost production exceeding 200 tonnes per year)

• 6 extractive industries (exceeding production rate of 100 000 tonnes per year)

• 3 abattoirs (exceeding 100 tonnes of red meat or 200 tonnes of white meat products per year).

Other significant point sources Activities listed above that operate

below the threshold, shown in

brackets, are therefore not licensed

under the Environment Protection Act

1993, but can be significant point

sources of pollution. In addition to

these activities, significant point

sources include the following.

A potential

point source

of pollution:

landfills.

All these

activities

are licensed

by the

Environment

Protection

Authority to

ensure best

management

practices and

to prevent

scenes such

as those on

the left (EPA).

Stormwater drains Pollutants present in stormwater can include:

• heavy metals such as zinc and lead from roads

• oil and grease

• detergents

• green waste such as lawn clippings

• pesticide residues

• animal faeces

• fertilisers

• sediment

• sewage from poorly maintain systems.

The total load of these pollutants carried in runoff can be considerable. For example it has been estimated that the Torrens River discharges 4.5 tonnes of phosphorus, 83 tonnes of nitrogen and 800 tonnes of sediment to the sea annually.

19.

A milking

shed and

yard

(a source of

nutrients)

(EPA).

The following

improvements will be

taken to deal with

domestic wastewater

treatment systems:

• A comprehensive audit of

existing systems is being

undertaken.

• Failing systems will be

required to comply with

waste control regulations.

• Education and awareness

programmes will be under­

taken on the proper care

and maintenance of these

systems.

Dairies New septic tanks are required to • The use of environmentally In the Mount Lofty Ranges, dairies, comply with the Waste Control friendly systems will bewhich are a major source of nutrients, Regulations issued under the Public encouraged.are now required to comply with the and Environmental Health Act 1987 Environment Protection (Milking Shed but while these regulations specify • SA Water is accelerating

Effluent Management) Policy 1997 and certain requirements for construction its programme to sewer

install effective waste storage facilities and installation they are not Stirling, Aldgate and

with effluent reuse so that wastes prescriptive on maintenance practices. Bridgewater over the next

cannot enter waterbodies and cause Old septic tanks, which are the main five years at a cost of

environmental harm. issue, are not required to comply with $16 million. the waste control regulations.

Septic tanks Septic tanks fall into two categories: Domestic wastewater • Effluent discharged from the tank is management systems

connected to a septic tank effluentdisposal (STED) system. STED systems • Approximately 88,000 people live in

are usually run by the local council and the Mount Lofty Ranges.

treat the effluent in lagoons prior to • 75% of allotments in the Adelaide disposal. STED systems serving over Hills have septic wastewater 100 persons in the water protection treatment systems.areas of the Mount Lofty Ranges are

• 65% or approximately 5000 septiclicensed under the Environment tanks do not comply with wasteProtection Act. Septic tanks control regulations and many leakconnected to STED systems are not raw sewage.considered to be an issue although theSTED system itself can be. • The effluent is often piped or left to

run into stormwater drains and

Options for improving septic tank

performance and reducing

pollution impacts include:

• improved and regular

maintenance

• installing new systems where

necessary

• connecting systems to sewer

• constructing septic tank effluent

disposal systems.

• Effluent is disposed on-site through waterways.a soakage trench or through anaerobic wastewater treatment system. • This source of nutrients contributes

to algal blooms in reservoirs and theSeptic tanks using soakage trenches presence of water-borne parasites in

to dispose of effluent are a significant streams. source of nutrients and pathogens.

• There are 1500 households in theMany of these septic tanks fail due townships of Stirling, Aldgate and

to poor maintenance and polluted Bridgewater that can be connectedeffluent can run off into rivers and to the mains sewer.streams.

20.

Effluent

pooling in a

creek after

leaking from

a septic tank

(EPA).

Landuse Area (ha) Area (%)

Grazing 341 222 49

Crops 92 032 13

Dairy 43 880 6

Native vegetation 39 175 6

Conservation parks 18 271 3

Urban 13 756 2

Vineyards 12 574 2

Rural living 11 517 2

Plantation forest 9 592 1.5

Vegetables 8 713 1.5

Orchards 5 757 1

Horses 5 627 1

Other 12 659 2

Not mapped 67 218 10

Total Area 690 370 100

Table 6.

The extent

of major

landuses in

the Mount

Lofty Ranges

catchments

in 1993

(source:

PIRSA).

Note: Other

landuses

include

dams, dairy,

vegetables,

recreation,

horticulture

and mining.

Vineyards

(a growing

landuse type

in the Mount

Lofty Ranges)

(EPA).

A heavily

grazed pasture

in the Mount

Lofty Ranges

(EPA).

Diffuse sources

Degradation of riparian vegetation

resulting in erosion of stream banks

and runoff from land are significant

sources of diffuse pollution. Certain

landuses, if incorrectly managed, can

have a major impact on water quality.

Nutrient and sediment loads from

catchments dominated by intensive

horticulture in particular and, to a

lesser extent, grazing, mixed

agriculture and the urban

environment, are much higher than

those from catchments dominated

by native vegetation.

Among the dominant landuses in the Mount Lofty Ranges are dairying, livestock grazing, potato crops, orchards, vineyards, forestry and market gardens. There are also significant urbanised areas. Patches of native vegetation exist on the steepest slopes and within the immediate vicinity of reservoirs (Figure 5).

In 1993, landuse was mapped in many Mount Lofty Ranges catchments (Table 6). Current aerial photography is now being assessed by Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) to determine changes in landuse between then and now.

21.

Adelaide

Mount Barker

Woodside

Lobethal

Stirling

Kangarilla

Port Noarlunga

View of

different

landuse

practices at

Piccadilly.

An aerial

view of the

Piccadilly

Valley

Figure 5.

Landuse

map of the

Onkaparinga

catchment

(map source:

EPA, aerial

photos:

DEHAA, other

photos: EPA).

Market

garden

opposite

Cox Creek

gauging

station.

An aerial

view of

Mount Bold

Reservoir.

22.

How has landuse impacted on riparian vegetation? Many activities within the catchments

of the Mount Lofty Ranges have

caused long-lasting and severe

impacts on water resources. Poor

water quality is the legacy of

degradation of riparian vegetation

and direct water pollution from poor

land management practices.

Past removal of native riparian vegetation is causing the continued erosion of waterways. Exotic plants, such as blackberry, gorse, broom and willow, block waterways, exacerbate bank erosion and provide poor habitat for aquatic animals. The native vegetation along the surveyed watercourses of the upper Onkaparinga catchment has been severely degraded. Only 11% of the length of all streams in the catchment has native vegetation.

Figure 6 shows that the dominant riparian vegetation in the Onkaparinga

Other 11%

Pasture, no trees and shrubs 49%

Pasture with exotic trees and

shrubs 25%

Open forest of varying

condition 11%

Domestic Gardens and

Horticulture 4%

catchment is pasture (containing grasses) with no trees and shrubs.

It is estimated that in the whole of the Mount Lofty Ranges, only 1% of riparian vegetation is healthy. In the Onkaparinga catchment, 4% of stream vegetation is considered to be in good condition. The degraded riparian zone is a direct result of clearing and livestock grazing spanning more than 100 years.

This comprehensive change in riparian habitats has significant implications for both the ecological health and water quality of the watercourses.

The EPA has recently undertaken a survey of riparian condition in the Myponga reservoir catchment. The results are shown in Figure 7.

The percentage of surveyed streams affected by stock access and other factors is shown in the Table 7.

Issue Length of Streams streams affected affected

(km) (%)

Unrestricted stock access 33 60

Woody weeds 6

Lack of native vegetation 6

Remnant native vegetation 2 4

Exotic trees 2 4

Poor bank stability 0.25 0.5

Other 2.5 4.5

Unsurveyed 3 5

11

11

Steps being taken to

improve riparian condition:

• With support from land­

owners, extensive riparian

improvement works have

already been undertaken.

• Riparian improvement

programmes will be

accelerated.

• The Myponga Creek

catchment is a priority area

and additional funds will be

provided for fencing and

riparian works.

• Education programmes

will be implemented on

the importance of the

riparian zone.

Figure 7.

Riparian

condition in

the Myponga

catchment

(source: EPA).

Figure 6. Riparian vegetation types in the Onkaparinga Table 7. Stream and riparian zone condition in the Myponga

catchment (source: EPA). catchment (1998) (source: EPA).

Myponga catchment

Myponga reservoir

Streams that flow into Myponga reservoir

23.

5. Catchment managementThe concept of planning on a

catchment scale is growing in

acceptance – and for good reason.

Outbreaks of Cryptosporidium and

Giardia, runoff containing pesticides

from agricultural and forestry areas,

elevated nutrient levels in streams

and blooms of cyanobacteria in

reservoirs represent issues directly

associated with a fragmented

management approach that does

not adequately address conflicting

landuse practices.

Ideally, Adelaide should have pristine water supply catchments; however, it is not possible to turn the clock back. We have multiple-use catchments and must derive the best quality water we can from them. It also means that we must be vigilant in our catchment management practices.

Barriers to stop

contamination The Australian Drinking Water

Guidelines 1996 stress the

importance of multiple barriers to

stop or reduce contamination getting

into drinking water supplies.

The barriers are:

• catchment protection to stop contamination from entering streams

• detention in reservoirs where contaminants can settle, degrade or die off naturally

• security of water storages

• coagulation, settling and filtration in water treatment facilities

• disinfection

• a secure distribution system to stop recontamination.

The most common and widespread health risk associated with drinking water is the presence of micro­organisms that can cause disease. The presence of such organisms in water is usually the result of contamination, either directly or indirectly, by human or animal faeces. Sources of contamination can include leaking or poorly maintained septic tanks, discharges from septic tank effluent disposal systems, and animal waste or dead animals deposited in or near to waterbodies.

Contamination of the rivers and streams in the Mount Lofty Ranges by faecal material is a significant issue. Water should be treated (eg by boiling or disinfection) before it is used for drinking.

The table below (Table 8) shows the approximate cumulative effectiveness of each of the barriers in dealing with faecal bacteria and the water-borne parasites Cryptosporidium and Giardia.

Table 8. Cumulative effectiveness of each of the barriers.

Good catchment protection and management is therefore an important barrier in minimising the risk of disease from drinking water supplies as well as achieving positive environmental outcomes.

Without effective catchment protection, SA Water estimates that the investment required to upgrade treatment facilities at metropolitan water filtration plants to counter the deteriorating water quality of runoff from the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed would be $300 million.

Barrier % removal of faecal % removal of bacteria and Giardia Cryptosporidium

Effective catchment protection up to 97% up to 97%

Detention in reservoirs >99% >99%

Water treatment >99.99% >99.99%

Disinfection Effectively full removal >99.99%*

* Disinfection is not effective for Cryptosporidium

24.

Who manages streams in the Mount Lofty

Ranges? Many groups are involved in

managing different aspects of the

Mount Lofty Ranges, including:

• seven councils (Barossa, Playford, Tea Tree Gully, Onkaparinga, Mount Barker, Adelaide Hills and Alexandrina)

• five catchment water management boards (Torrens, Patawalonga, Onkaparinga, River Murray, and Northern Adelaide and Barossa)

• approximately 67 Landcare groups

• four soil boards (Central Hills, Northern Hills, Southern Hills and Murray Plains)

• thousands of landholders

• Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program Board

• State Government agencies: Department for Environment and Heritage (EPA); SA Water; PIRSA; Planning SA; Transport SA; Department for Water Resources.

For example, the Onkaparinga River and its catchment is managed by the Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board, four councils, a regional economic development board, the Central Hills and Southern soil boards, a water resources planning committee and the Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Management Board. The roles and responsibilities of government agencies involved with catchment management in the Mount Lofty Ranges are shown in Table 9.

Development

Monitoring Environmental Water Resource Bulk Water Control

and Evaluation Control Planning & Control Management and Planning Education Restoration

Catchment Catchment Catchment

Water Water Water

Lead agency DEH (EPA) DEH (EPA)

Management

Boards SA Water

DTUPA

(Planning SA)

Management

Boards

Management

Boards

Contributing agency

Catchment water

management boards

SAHC

Local government

DWR

DEH (EPA)

Local government

Catchment water

DEH (EPA)

PIRSA

Landowner partnership

programmes

SA Water SA Water

PIRSA

management boards

Local government PIRSA

Human DEH (EPA) Soil boards DEH (EPA)

Services DWR

Mt Lofty Ranges Catchment

DWR

DWR Program Soil boards

Landcare groups

Mt Lofty Ranges Catchment

Program

Strategies Meet water quality objectives

Monitor point source pollution

Monitor streams and reservoirs

Catchment audits

Environment Protection Act

licences

Environment protection

policies

Septic tank regulation

Development of catchment water

management plans

Water Resources Act

licences

Water transfers

Reservoir management

Water treatment

Water supply

Mt Lofty Ranges Strategy Plan

Planning Amendment

Reviews

Development applications

Subdivision

Codes of Practice

Demonstration schemes

Newsletters

Farm extension

Catchment management

plans

Riparian restoration

Retention of wetlands

Wastewater Risk evaluation

Monitor

Environment protection

orders

control

Stormwater

upgrades

Trash racks licensed activities control

Erosion control Community awareness Revegetation

Monitor water quantity and flows

Table 9.

The roles and

responsibilities

of government

agencies and

other stake­

holders

in water

management.

25.

6. ConclusionsThe issues are being Large numbers of farm dams in the

addressed upper catchments have reduced runoff to rivers and streams resulting

The catchments of the Mount Lofty in diminished catchment yields and Ranges are used for different poor environmental flows. The purposes including harvesting of reduction in stream flow is adding drinking water, agriculture, intensive to the cost of, and our reliance horticulture, recreation, tourism, rural on, pumping water from the living, environmental conservation River Murray. and urban environments. These • Riverine environments have been multiple uses place pressure on the eroded, animals have free access to water resource and can impact on many waterways, and introduced water quality. species of plants dominate many

stretches of rivers and streams. • There are significant water quality

These have the effect of increasingissues associated with faecal and

nutrient, faecal and sediment loads topesticide contamination, high levels

the system.of nutrients that can cause algal blooms on reservoirs and lakes, and • Planning controls have not been

as effective as they could be insediments which add to the cost of protecting and improving water

water treatment and can hasten the quality. There is a need for a

silting up of reservoirs. These combined focus on protecting water

issues are widespread and could quality, particularly in water supplycause significant public health catchments. concerns. Outbreaks have been

These issues focus attention on theavoided to date partly by well need for a programme of on-ground

designed and operated water work, clearly defined management

treatment plants. structures and responsibilities, strong

• Over many decades, flow regimes have been significantly altered reducing the capacity of the system to flush out pollutants.

planning controls, accountability, and an enforceable legislative framework to protect and improve water quality in the catchments.

First Creek

at Waterfall

Gully (EPA).

A lot of progress has been

made and more is being

done

• Catchment water

management boards have

been established and have

initiated on-ground works,

education and awareness-

raising programmes that

will improve water quality.

• Monitoring and evaluation

have been strengthened

through the formation of

a State Water Monitoring

Coordinating Committee

reporting to the State

Water Policy Committee.

Groups with a significant

interest in monitoring

water quality and quantity

are represented on this

committee and their task

is to develop an integrated

approach to monitoring

and, where appropriate,

to make the data publicly

available.

• Most point sources of

pollution are controlled

either by licensing under

the Environment Protection

Act or though other means.

• The Mount Lofty Ranges

Catchment Programme and

catchment boards have

revegetated substantial

sections of many

waterways, although much

still remains to be done.

• Education and awareness

raising programmes have

been implemented.

Examples include the ‘Our

Patch’ programme run by

the Torrens and

Patawalonga catchment

water management boards,

and small farm management

training courses presented

by soil conservation boards.

26.

$40 million investment

The Government recognises that there are issues associated with multi-use catchments upon which we depend for our water supply. Having taken stock, the Government will implement a $40 million programme covering a range of measures aimed at improving water quality in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

This integrated programme will cover:

On-ground works

• The present programme of

sewering properties in the

major towns of the

watershed will be

accelerated and completed

within five years.

• Additional funds will be

provided for fencing and

restoration of rivers and

streams.

• The use of well maintained,

environmentally friendly

domestic wastewater

treatment systems will

be encouraged.

Monitoring

• Monitoring programmes

will be increased with

better coordination and

data sharing across

agencies.

• Land use mapping, rainfall

and topography data, and

other information will be

used to identify high risk

areas in the watershed.

• Targeted monitoring

programmes will be

implemented in high risk

areas.

• Access to monitoring data

will be provided to the

community through the

Web and other means.

Resources

• Programmes worth over

$28 million are already

under way and additional

funds will be spent over the

next five years to augment

and accelerate these

programmes.

Responsibility

• The Environment

Protection Agency will have

the responsibility for

ensuring that the

programmes are delivered.

• Responsibility for water

quality matters in the

watershed will be

coordinated through a

multi-agency Watershed

Protection office in the

Mount Lofty Ranges.

Planning

• The Mount Lofty Ranges

Regional Strategy Plan

is being updated with a

strong focus on protecting

water quality.

• The State Water Plan

recognises the importance

of protecting water quality

in the watershed.

• Planning controls relating

to non-complying

developments will be

improved and enforced.

Compliance management

• Water quality controls will

be strengthened and

enforced.

• Widespread use of

pesticides will be either

restricted or managed in

the watershed.

• Regulations governing the

operation and maintenance

of on-site domestic

wastewater treatment

systems will be tightened

up and enforced.

• Farm dam regulations will

be reviewed and enforced.

Education

• Education and awareness-

raising programmes will be

increased targeting

domestic wastewater

treatment systems, farm

chemicals, stormwater

management, riparian

management, property

planning and other matters

that can impact on water

quality.

27.

7. Selected readingAustralian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC). 1992. Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. National Water Quality Management Strategy.

Black A, Goodwin N and Sliuzas A. 1995. Mount Lofty Ranges septic tank survey. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Buckney RT. 1995. Water pollution, biodiversity and the effectiveness of water quality criteria. In RA Bradstock, TD Auld, DA Keith, RT Kingsford, D Lunney and DP Sivertsen (eds), Conserving biodiversity: Threats and solutions, Surrey Beatty & Sons.

Burdett M. 1936. The flora and fauna of Basket Range: Before and after settlement. Author.

Clark R. 1987. The estimation of flow, turbidity and loads of nitrogen and phosphorus imported to Mt Bold reservoir via the Murray Bridge-Onkaparinga pipeline, 1973-1985. EWS 87/17.

Department for Environment and Natural Resources. 1995a. South Australia – Our water, our future, sustainable management. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1993. Mount Lofty Ranges Regional Strategy Plan. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Dyson M. 1997. Navigating the South Australian Water Resources Act 1997. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Environment Defender’s Office. 1994. Inland rivers: Regulatory strategies for ecologically sustainable management. EDO, Sydney.

Environment Protection Agency. 1999. Water quality monitoring report: Ambient water quality monitoring of South Australia’s rivers and streams (chemical and physical quality) June 1995-January 1997, Report no. 1. Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs.

Environment Protection Authority. 1998. State of the Environment Report for South Australia 1998. Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs.

Environment Protection Authority. 1997. Stormwater pollution prevention, Code of Practice for the community. Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs.

Gardner A. 1990. Legislative implementation of integrated catchment management in Western Australia. Environment Planning Law Journal, 7, 199-208.

Glatz A. 1985. Surface water quality data in South Australia, July 1978-June 1983. EWS 84/34.

Harvey P. 1995. Mt Lofty Ranges Catchment Program. Environment South Australia, 4(1), 10-11.

Hollick M. 1990. Why won’t they do it? Problems of integrating catchment management at the farm level. Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Soil Conservation Conference, 1990.

Maschmedt DJ. 1987. Soils and land use potential, Onkaparinga South Australia. 1:50 000 map sheet. Department of Agriculture, South Australia.

McClellan P (QC). 1998. Assessment of the contamination events and future directions for the management of the catchment. Sydney Water Inquiry, 3rd Report.

NHMRC and ARMCANZ. 1996. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Water Quality Management Strategy.

NHMRC. 1990. Australian guidelines for recreational use of water. Commonwealth of Australia.

Nicholson BL. 1992. Nutrient loads in the Onkaparinga river system. EWS 92/17.

Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board. 1998. Initial Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Plan. Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board.

Riparian Zone Management Project. 1997. A watercourse management action plan for the Onkaparinga River catchment. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Stewart J. 1997. Australian water management: Towards the ecological bureaucracy? Environment and Planning Law Journal, 14, 259-267.

Teclaff LA. 1996. Evolution of the river basin concept in national and international law. Natural Resources Journal, 36, 359-391.

Thomas DA. 1987. A study of land characteristics, use and management in relation to water quality in the catchment of the Mt Bold reservoir. EWS 86/23.

Williamson DR. 1990. Effect of dryland salinity on selected water resources in South Australia. CSIRO Division of Water Resources, Technical Report.

Williamson DR and van der Wel B. 1991. Quantification of the impact of dryland salinity on water resources in the Mt Lofty Ranges, SA. International Hydrology & Water Resources Symposium, Perth.

Wood G. 1984. The Mt Lofty Ranges watershed: Impact of landuse on water quality and implications for reservoir water quality management. EWS 86/19.

28.

Glossaryambient water quality the overall quality of waterbodies; indicates the quality of water when all potential effects are considered as a whole rather than focusing on the effects of particular discharges

catchment the area determined by topographic features within which rainfall will contribute to runoff at a particular point under consideration

diffuse source pollution pollution from sources such as an eroding paddock, urban and suburban lands and forests, which are spread out, and often not easily identified or managed

ecosystem a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit

water-borne parasite a minute intestinal invertebrate

environmental indicators physical, chemical or biological measures that are used to assess natural resources and environmental quality

eutrophication enrichment of water with nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, which can stimulate the growth of algae or other aquatic flora and fauna

riparian vegetation or habitats along the banks of watercourses

runoff that portion of precipitation not immediately adsorbed into or detained upon the soil and which thus becomes a surface flow

pathogen agent causing disease

point source pollution pollution from an easily discernible single source such as a factory